liberal one, who has fought them harder and more successfully than anyone else. AEI employed Lynne Cheney!
http://www.aei.org/scholar/10But, this is the theme the rest of the media spouts as well - likely to avoid having to admit that they really were unfair in 2004.
The fact is JK was out in front more than any other Democrat in 2005 and 2006 - it sure was NOT Hillary or Obama. If you look at the positions the whole party took in early 2007, Kerry was positioned in each absolutely perfectly by the end of 2005. (Far better than the wondrous Clintons positioned HRC)
In addition, this excuses them from playing with the people who did mock JK in 2005 and 2006. (and we know precisely who they were allied with and why they did it - JK did not rule out a run in 2008.) I don't doubt there were moments JK thought of getting out of this. There was a Brookings Institute speech on climate change in early 2005 (I think) where he spoke of all the important positive things - all being done by states or companies - not DC. Had that continued, I would bet that he might have determined that he could do more outside the Senate. But, it ignores that JK was extremely active as early as 2004 trying to keep people focused and engaged. It was not an obvious thing to keep his email list and use it as he did - and it was effective.
The fact is that he was attacked after the election by simultaneously by the right which continued their lies, the centrist Democrats allied with the Clintons - with many putting out book, articles or comments trashing his campaign (which in MHO did better relative to what a generic Democrat could do than the grossly over rated 1992 campaign of another), and the left fringe, that went back to whining about having held their nose for no good reason - to vote for the truest liberal who was a viable primary candidate since at least 1992. That he is still standing show how strong and focused he is in a profession of people whose egos could never have stood this. (Imagine if Kerry had lost the primary in 2004 and stayed away from the Senate while it was in session for over a month or refused to concede for a couple of weeks after the last primary even though his opponent had a significantly higher regular delegate count and enough total delegates to win. Imagine the comments if at that point people allied with him spoke of a co-Presidency.) Now, that is sulking!
But, if this is the way they have of finally admitting what we saw long ago, it is better than there asinine ignoring his accomplishments. (It is interesting how they position the completely positive Leahy comment to shade it. ) I think this is just their inability to concede they were unfair or inaccurate. This is why I suspect that we will always see stories of how Hillary was a work horse in the Senate, though not a single HRC fan has ever been able to tell me one major area she led on in Senate. They explain how good she was for constituents - but, that is really more the office than the Senator and was true of Senator pothole, Al D'amoto.
I agree with you, BLM on the pundits. I think it is due to their collect inability to actually re evaluate anything.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
